I am not convinced actually. The shooter was in the classroom for an hour with ammunition. If assault weapons weren't available, he'd have bought multiple revolvers. Hell, I'd argue that the gun related deaths in 1920's were much higher with revolvers than today with assault weapons.
Assault rifles account for only 3% [1] of total gun related deaths. But it is what anti-gun folks focus on as a scape goat. Foolish, emotional, knee-jerk thinking because it is a "Big scary looking weapon". We all lose because the focus is on something mostly ineffective. Perhaps, we can focus our energy on other aspects than "Big scary" weapons.
Have you taken a look at CA AR-15/long-gun laws? It is the most useless regulations one can conceive (finger guard, 10 round magazine, breaking-gun to reload). All it takes is 2 mins to reverse the CA-compliant changes. The lawmakers are fooling us with ineffective policies that don't do anything to prevent these shootings.
Perhaps we can argue about number of children killed in this incident, but the sample size is 1 and standard deviation is infinite.
The shooter would not have been barricaded in the room for so long if he wasn't able to spray high-velocity rounds at the police. You know those penetrate body armor without ceramic plates and police do not wear ceramic plates.
Revolver rounds would not penetrate, and a carbine would allow him to be flanked much more easily.
EDIT: laws keep honest people in line, but they also give us the ability to punish the dishonest.
Maybe we have a common ground: Police going “Jee man, dude’s got a big scary weapon” and affecting the hopes of conjuring any bit of courage left in them to bust in and eliminate the threat.
